green
Positive treatment
Issue: jury a curative instructionNY ↗
Issue: Molineux ruleNY ↗
Issue: provided a curative instructionNY ↗
Issue: Addressing defendantNY ↗
73.0 score
G Cite
cited 17× by 17 distinct cases, 2000–2025 · 2 courts↓ Fading ·
…must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction
at p. 944
✓
Topic ↗
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2002–2015↓ Fading ·
…under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction
at p. 944
✓
Topic ↗
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2004–2022↓ Fading ·
…the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction
at p. 944
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
(3×)
Several of defendant's present challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved, and we decline to consider them in the interest of justice ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Soto
(3×)
"Inasmuch as defendant did not object further or move for a mistrial, 'the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to . . . defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Kellam , 237 AD3d 1518 , 1519 [4th Dept 2025], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Mencel , 206 AD3d 1550 , 1554 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1152 [2022]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Akins
Next, defendant argues that County Court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the charge of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 135.05) as a lesser included offense of count 1. [FN2] "A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense charge upon request when (1) it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct and (2) there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater" ( People v Oates , 222 AD3d 1271, 1274 [3d Dept…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kenyatta
(2×)
Defendant failed to preserve all but one of his arguments that the prosecutor made improper remarks in summation, and we decline to review the unpreserved claims in the interest of justice ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911 , 912 [2006]; People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ross
Defendant did not preserve most of his arguments that the prosecutor made improper remarks in summation, and we decline to review these claims in the interest of justice ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kellam
(2×)
Inasmuch as defendant did not object further or move for a mistrial, "the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to . . . defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gaffney
Inasmuch as defendant did not object further or move for a mistrial, "the curative instruction must be deemed to have corrected the error to . . . defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Roche
Defendant's contention is also unpreserved with respect to the testimony of the fourth witness inasmuch as the court sustained defense counsel's objection to that testimony and struck it from the record and, "in the absence of further objection or a request for a mistrial, [the court's remedy] 'must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Acosta , 134 AD3d 1525 , 1526 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 990 [2016], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Contreras , 154 AD3d 1320, 1321-1322 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 110…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Govan
Defendant's remaining challenges are unpreserved, as he did not object, made only general objections, or did not object further after the court's curative instructions ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and we decline to [*2]review them in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mercado-Ramos v. Noeth
Under New York law, it is a “firmly established and regularly followed” legal principle that where counsel fails to object further or request a mistrial following a trial judge’s ruling on an objection during summation, the court’s ruling or curative instructions “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction.” People v. Heide, 644 N.E.2d 1370, 1372 (1994) (citing People v. Williams, 390 N.E.2d 299 (N.Y. 1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jones
Under these circumstances, "the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jones
Under these circumstances, "the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Reed
We conclude, however, that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review because, during the jury charge, "the court provided a curative instruction that, in the absence of an objection or a motion for a mistrial, 'must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Szatanek , 169 AD3d 1448 , 1449 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 981 [2019], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Johnston , 192 AD3d 1516, 1521 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 972 [2021]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Richard B. Gaworecki
“It is undisputed here that criminally negligent homicide is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Anzalone (Raymond)
We note that defendant neither objected to the instruction given nor requested any further relief, and, thus, the curative instruction "must be deemed to have corrected [any] error to . . . defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Anselmo , 164 AD3d 1462 , 1463 [2018]; People v Lacey , 99 AD3d 944, 945 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Feliciano
In any event, in light of defendant's failure to request an additional instruction, to seek a mistrial, or to object to the instructions that were given, we conclude that the instructions that were given " 'must be deemed to have corrected the [alleged] error to the defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Lane , 106 AD3d 1478 , 1480-1481 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnston
Defendant's challenge to the court's instructions to the jury regarding the purported hearsay testimony is not preserved for our review inasmuch as the court "provided . . . curative instruction[s] that, in the absence of an objection or a motion for a mistrial, 'must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Szatanek , 169 AD3d 1448 , 1449 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 981 [2019], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Marvin , 162 AD3d 1744 , 1745 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1066 [2018]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Firu (Victor)
It is noted that when a defendant fails to object to a court's curative instruction, the instruction "must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Anselmo , 164 AD3d 1462 , 1463 [2018]; People v Muniz , 44 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2007]), and the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions ( see People v Stone , 29 NY3d 166, 171 [*6][2017]; People v Baker , 14 NY3d 266, 274 [2010]; People v Berg , 59 NY2d 294, 300 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Logan
After defendant's objections to the testimony regarding the photo array procedures were sustained, he did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial, and thus that aspect of his contention is not preserved for our review ( see People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dinant
Although defendant raises challenges to the prosecutor's summation and contends that the verdict was inconsistent, those contentions are not preserved for our review ( see People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Rivera , 133 AD3d 1255, 1256 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1154 [2016]; People v Edwards , 129 AD3d 1499 , 1500 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 964 [2016]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Baez
Defendant's challenge to the court's instructions to the jury during that witness's testimony is not preserved for our review inasmuch as the court "provided [] curative instruction[s] that, in the absence of an objection or a motion for a mistrial, must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Szatanek , 169 AD3d 1448 , 1449 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 981 [2019], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Marvin , 162 AD3d 1744 , 1745 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1066 [2018]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cherry
Defendant's arguments concerning the People's summation are unpreserved ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Szatanek
Defendant further contends in his main brief that he was denied a fair trial because the Medical Examiner was permitted to testify that, in his opinion, the victim's death was a "homicide." That contention is not preserved for our review because the court provided a curative instruction that, in the absence of an objection or a motion for a mistrial, "must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" ( People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Marvin , 162 AD3d 1744 , 1745 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1066 [2018]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Collins
Although there was a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed criminally negligent homicide but not manslaughter in the second degree ( see People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), "it is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for defense counsel's allegedly deficient conduct ( People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]), and here defendant "has not demonstrated that the failure to request [such a] charge was other than an acceptable all-or-nothing defense strategy" ( Pe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cutaia
Because defendant did not seek any further relief in connection with three of the four challenged comments, any prejudice from those three comments was presumptively corrected to his satisfaction ( see People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Carson , 122 AD3d 1391 , 1393 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1161 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Chudy (Vincent)
In any event, the District Court's curative instructions to the jury, following which defense counsel did not object and did not request a mistrial, must be deemed to have corrected the error to the satisfaction of the defense ( see People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see also People v Letriz , 157 AD3d 966 , 966-967 [2018]; People v Choi , 137 AD3d 808 [2016]), and the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions ( see People v Mcmanus, 150 AD3d 762 , 763 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Marvin
The court sustained defense counsel's objections to the prosecutor's questions and provided a curative instruction "that, in the absence of further objection or a request for a mistrial, must be deemed to have corrected the error[] to the defendant's satisfaction' " ( People v Terborg , 156 AD3d 1320, 1321 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 1018 [2018], quoting People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Terborg
Defendant’s contention in his main brief that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as the court sustained trial counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments and gave curative instructions in two instances that, in the absence of further objection or a request for a mistrial, “must be deemed to have corrected the error[s] to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Acosta, 134 AD3d 1525 , 1526 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 990 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gonzalez
Defendant’s arguments relating to the trial court’s instructions on accessorial liability are unpreserved because the court corrected, to defense counsel’s satisfaction, each deficiency in the charge to which counsel had objected and no further instructions were requested (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Perez (David)
Defendant either failed to object, made generalized objections, or, when his objections were sustained, did not request any further relief, so that the court's curative action "must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see also People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Contreras
People v Duell, 124 AD3d 1225, 1228 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 967 [2015]; People v Lewis, 247 AD2d 866, 866 [1998], Iv denied 93 NY2d 1021 [1999]) and, “in the absence of further objection or a request for a mistrial, [striking the informant’s testimony] ‘must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Acosta, 134 AD3d 1525 , 1526 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 990 [2016], quoting People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Burkette
The defendant’s contention that certain of the prosecutor’s remarks on summation constituted reversible error because the prosecutor, among other things, usurped the jury’s role as factfinder and engaged in impermissible bolstering of the People’s witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review, since, although the defendant objected to most of the comments, he failed to raise any objections to the curative instructions given *637 by the Supreme Court in response to his objections or to seek a mistrial (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Thomas, 143 AD3d 1006, 1007 [20…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cuatlal
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to charge criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree (see People v Randolph, 81 NY2d 868, 869 [1993]; People v Bruno, 127 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2015]; People v Hill, 266 AD2d 473, 474 [1999]; People v Holloway, 262 AD2d 500 [1999]; People v Cameron, 244 AD2d 350, 351 [1997]; People v Stephens, 198 AD2d 245 , 245-246 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 990 [1994]; cf. People v Heide, 84 NY2d 94…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cassandro
Defendant’s arguments concerning the prosecutor’s cross-examination and summation are unpreserved (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tapia
The defendant’s challenge to certain comments the prosecutor made during summation is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542, 542 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tapia
The defendant’s challenge to certain comments the prosecutor made during summation is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542, 542 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mulcahey
Defendant made no further objection after the court granted his request for a curative instruction, and the curative instruction is therefore “deemed to have corrected the [alleged] error to . . . defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mulcahey
Defendant made no further objection after the court granted his request for a curative instruction, and the curative instruction is therefore “deemed to have corrected the [alleged] error to . . . defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
The defendant’s contentions regarding allegedly improper comments in the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either failed to object to the comments or failed to request additional curative action, and untimely moved for a mistrial (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 492 [2002]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Grant, 137 AD3d 938 [2016]; People v Adams, 93 AD3d 734, 735 [2012]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542 [2004]; People v White, 5 AD3d 511 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SPEARS, VERNON v. PEOPLE v
As an initial matter, we conclude that defendant was not required to make a further objection or request for relief following the court’s curative instructions in order to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial (see People v Smith, 97 NY2d 324, 329-330 [2002]; People v Barranco, 174 AD2d 343, 344-345 [1991]; cf. People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brown
Because the defense did not thereafter seek a mistrial, the aforementioned instruction “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Mendez, 104 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ferguson
Therefore, these curative actions “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (P eople v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see also People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mirabal
Since defendant expressed complete satisfaction with the court’s curative instruction and requested no further remedy, he failed to preserve his challenge to the prosecutor’s summation (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Acosta
Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct is unpreserved inasmuch as Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s questions at issue and gave the jury a curative instruction which, in the absence of further objection or a request for a mistrial, “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Acosta
Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct is unpreserved inasmuch as Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s questions at issue and gave the jury a curative instruction which, in the absence of further objection or a request for a mistrial, “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Daniel Israel
As the People contend, defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of testimony concerning his 2005 assault of a restaurant worker is unpreserved or was waived at trial because defendant rejected the court’s offer to strike the testimony, elected to cross-examine the police officer, and never moved for a mistrial on the ground that the prejudice caused by this evidence was incurable (cf. People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Medley
Under the circumstances, the court’s “instruction[ ] must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Lane, 106 AD3d 1478, 1480-1481 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ielfield
Under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error [s] to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Medley
Under the circumstances, the court’s “instruction[ ] must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Lane, 106 AD3d 1478, 1480-1481 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ielfield
Under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error [s] to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
William Heide, Appellant
v.
William Heide, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 1, 1994.
644 N.E.2d 1370
1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4133
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Cohen & Lombardo, P. C, Buffalo (Robert N. Convissar of counsel), for appellant., Kevin M. Dillon, District Attorney of Erie County, Buffalo (Susan D. Nusbaum of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Cited by 228 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The Appellate Division order should be affirmed.
A two-pronged showing is required to establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge. First, it must be shown that the additional offense is a lesser included offense within the meaning of CPL 1.20 (37). Second, the requesting party must show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser included offense, but not the greater (CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63).
It is undisputed here that criminally negligent homicide is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree (see, People v Stanfield, 36 NY2d 467). Moreover, the fact that defendant intentionally stabbed Golofit does not preclude a finding that defendant committed criminally negligent homicide. In criminal negligence, a person acts with the requisite culpable mental state when such person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act in question will cause the statutorily described result (Penal Law § 15.05 [4]). In the context of criminally negligent homicide, criminal negligence analysis focuses on the actor’s awareness of the risk that death will result from the act, not whether the underlying act is intentional. Here, a reasonable view of the record evidence supports a finding that defendant was not aware that stabbing Golofit would result in his death.
Defendant’s claim that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were so prejudicial as to deprive him of a fair trial is unpreserved for this Court’s review. Following the Trial Judge’s curative instructions, defense counsel neither objected further, nor requested a mistrial. Under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction (People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071).
[*945] Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.